Share this

Read more!

Get our weekly email

Enter your email address

Jose Manuel Barroso with Tony Blair. PAimages/Efrem Lukatsky. All rights reserved.Before becoming
Portugal’s Prime Minister, Mr. Barroso was first elected to Parliament in 1985
and served as State Secretary for Home Affairs, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs
and as Minister of Foreign Affairs. A prominent figure during the last 10 years
in Europe, José Manuel Durão Barroso ascent to the top of the financial world
comes as no surprise, if we take into account Goldman Sachs’ hiring policy.
Intelligent, connected and with a deep knowledge of Europe’s profound
complexities, Mr. Barroso is the perfect fit for Goldman Sachs’ London
International Bureau (GSI), the bank’s largest subsidiary - particularly after
the UK´s decision to leave the EU.

But, should Mr.
Barroso have accepted Goldman Sachs´ offer to become the chief lobbyist for the investment bank that, among other dubious
moves, helped
Greece to circumvent the Maastricht deficit rules? Accepting a position at
Goldman Sachs reflects a poor sense of
state. Poorer even than his decision, back in 2004, to leave Portugal´s prime-ministership
and move to Brussels after only 2 years in office. His decision reflects what
many Portuguese have known for a long time, and Europeans are learning just now:
Mr. Barroso’s first priority is not his country´s future, not the European
project, but himself.

Criticism of
Barroso’s appointment has been quick to emerge. Mathias
Fekl, the French Secretary of State for Foreign Trade, accused Mr. Barroso
of representing that “old Europe” which, according to him, “our generation will
change”. Politicians, however, have not been alone in their criticism. The Union for Unity (U4U),
the largest trade union representing the EU´s civil servants, has also called for
appropriate action on the matter and has circulated a petition, which has
been signed by many EU civil servants, for his monthly €18,000 pension to be
immediately suspended.

The bank that rules the world

Goldman Sachs is
a well-known institution, at least since the 2008 stock market crash. Linked to
the collapse of the financial system, it played a notorious role during the
subprime loan crisis and in masking
Greece´s true debt through an obscure operation of financial engineering
that ended up doubling the country´s debt.

Described as the
“bank that rules the world”, the investment entity lives by a simple motto,
according to the French journalist Marc Roche: more money equates to more
power. Goldman Sachs not only dominates the financial world, it also controls
governments, institutions and people on a global scale. Mario Draghi (current president
of the European Central Bank), Romano Prodi (former Italian Prime Minister),
Hank Paulson (US former Secretary of the Treasury) and Mario Monti (former
Italian Prime Minister) have all held positions at Goldman Sachs before revolving
into positions of power.

With is
allegiances spread across the political spectrum, Goldman Sachs strongly
invests in hiring smart, connected people capable of cultivating influences on
its behalf. Mr. Barroso fits in perfectly.

Mr. Barroso has
violated no formal regulations because, after the standard 18-month direct
lobby ban has elapsed, former commissioners have no obligation to inform the
Commission of their professional whereabouts. Yet, we should ask: is it ethical
for such a former high ranking authority to join a multi-billion dollar
corporation that actually does not respect the rules he was responsible for
enforcing?

Revolving commissioners

It is paramount
that a line be drawn between the public and the private sphere in order to
avoid corruption and conflicts of interests - and to prevent political
institutions from being abducted by corporations. The European Commission,
however, has failed to draw this line.

Evidently, Mr.
Barroso´s case is no exception. A revision of the European Commission Code of Conduct
is needed to ensure that commissioners behave with integrity and discretion
after they leave office. Increasing the conflict of interest period to 5 years
would be an efficient measure to put an end to this sort of revolving-door
practice.

This time, though,
Mr. Barroso’s lack of ethics should not go by with impunity. There are some
legal obligations commissioners must respect after leaving the Commission, and
these obligations also bind the President. Beyond the 18-month ban, it is
understood that they are committed to promoting the general interest of the
Union and taking appropriate initiatives to that end (17 TEU). This obligation implies behaving with integrity and discretion (245
TFEU) and refraining from disclosing
information (339
TFEU) and it applies even after commissioners (or in this case, the
President) leave office.

Mr. Barroso said
in a recent interview, published in the Portuguese newspaper Expresso, that he has
no political ambitions left. Certainly, the number of positions he currently
holds, despite the fact that many are academic and honorary, will keep him busy:
a
total of 23 as of July 2016, if we add his recent position as Goldman Sachs
non-executive chairman. But his obligations as former EU President, as
enshrined in the European treaties, do not cease to exist just because Mr.
Barroso has decided to move on from
politics.

Accepting a
position such as the one offered by Goldman Sachs entails serious consequences.
And Mr. Barroso, intelligent as he is, is fully aware of this. His reckless action
only comes to confirm what many have feared for a long time: that the ties
between the financial elites and the political elites are strong, and who rules
whom is a debatable question.

Political Insensibility

Of course, Mr.
Barroso is entitled to pursue a professional career. But the cooling off period should extend well
beyond 18 months, so as to make sure that public interest is preserved and that
the line between the private and public sphere is in place. If the cooling off period were to be extended
to 5 years, would Mr. Barroso’s connections be of much use to Goldman Sachs?

Mr. Barroso is
not the first former president of the European Commission to move from European
corridors to the financial heights. But he is the first to do so directly. It
is hard to believe that he had no other option, or that he could not find a
suitable job to further his professional career elsewhere. Yet, he chose precisely
Goldman Sachs, a company whose unscrupulous
conduct is well documented.

Many will defend
that such decision is a matter of personal
ethics. Indeed. But it is also an exercise in political insensibility. No one is asking Mr. Barroso to sacrifice himself for the European
project. But his decision undoubtedly damages how the EU is perceived by European
citizens and it destroys the idea a few still nurtured that European
politicians place European values and democracy over their own interests.

The French
Newspaper Libération rightly
described his appointment as the worst timing for the Union and a boon
for Europhobes. Far-rightleader Marine Le Pen was quick to take advantage
of it by stating that Mr. Barroso’s move is not
surprising for all those who know that the EU does not serve people but high
finance.

Speaking of betrayal makes no sense, as Mr. Barroso
is no longer a European official. But is it too much to ask of a former
president of the Commission not to slap
the EU in the face? Mr. Barroso has not violated the rules, yet his
decision shows how urgent it is for the rules to change. Putting an end to the
notion that it is fine for corporations to hire those who are up in the
political ladder and to use them to further their own interests and lobby the
institutions should be a priority.

Just because Mr.
Barroso does not take an interest in politics anymore, does not mean that politics will not take an interest in him. After
a lifetime’s work and commitment to European values, joining a corporation that
puts money and power over honesty is a decision that can, and should, be
unacceptable. Not because he, as an individual, cannot do it, but simply because, as former President of the
European Commission, he should not.

Comments

This article is published under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. If you have any
queries about republishing please
contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.